IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION PETITION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. of 2010

IN THE MATTER OF :-

1. Y.S. Chaudhary

S/o Sh. Ram Rup Chaudhary

R/o C-104, Rail Vihar, Sector-3

Vasundhra, Ghaziabad (U.P.)

Working as Dy.Chief Engineer (Construction)

Tilak Bridge, New Delhi

2. S.R.Madke

S/o Sh. Mahadeo Madke

R/o K-01, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.)

Working as Dy.Chief Engineer/General

Kashmere Gate. Delhi

3. Anal Kumar Bhowmik

S/o. Sh.A.K.Bhowmik

R/o. Qtr.No.1-H, Rly.Officers Colony

New Alipur

Calcutta - 38

Working as Secy. to Pr.Chief Engineer, E.Rly., Kolkata

4. B.K.Poddar

S/O Radharaman Poddar

R/O 51/A, Adarsha Colony, Maligaon Guwahati

Working as Executive Engineer /BD ,NF Rly Way

Guwahati.

5. S.K.Roy

S./0 Late N.B.Roy

R/o RB-IV 367/1, Officer’s Colony, Civil Line

Jabalpur, M.P.

Working as Executive Engineer,

WCR, Jabalpur, M.P.

6. K.K.Jain

S/o Sh.V.K.Jain

R/o E/69, Near Anwar Ganj Rly. Station

Kanpur, U.P.

Working as Dy.Chief Engineer/Planning & Design

North-East Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P.

7. D.K.Ghulani

S/o Sh. Din Dayal

R/o FB-109, Mansarovar Garden

New Delhi, Working as Executive Engineer/

Planning & Design, Headquarters Office

Baroda House, New Delhi

8. Rana Bandyopadhyay

S/o. Sh. S.K. Banerjee

R/o. Qtr.No.-89, Ist Floor, Kanchrapara

(West Bengal)-743145

Working as Divisional Town Engineer/E.Rly., Kanchrapara

9. Pallabh Phouzder

S/o. Sh. J.C. Phouzder

R/o. Flat 2-J Officers Colony, New Alipur

Kolkata – 38

Working as Dy.Chief Engineer/Con./PRD

E.Rly., Kolkata

10. Aswini Kumar Mondal

S/o. Sh. D.C. Mandal

R/o Qtr-1168/D, Yule Road

Assansol, West Bengal

Working as DEN/Bridge, Assansol

11. Devasish Baksi

S/o Sh. S.K.Baksi

R/o B-39, Amravati P.O.Sodepur

Kolkata ……… Petitioners

Versus

Ministry of Railways

Through its Secretary

Railway Board, Rail Bhavan

New Delhi. ….Respondent

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS

COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIA

The humble Petition of the Petitioners above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

(1) The Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

is filed praying against the discrimination being perpetuated

by the ministry of Railway ,where in the promotee officers of

CIVIL Engineering department are being deniedequality

interm of granting 238 additional vacancies to them for

induction to Group “A” , where as 3 other department , who

are equally situated and were given additional vacancies

under the same scheme and notification have already been

given the additional vacancies and for issue of writ of

mandamus directing the Respondent/Ministry of Railways to

implement the additional 238 vacancies which were granted

to the promotee officers of Civil Engineering Department

and four other Engineering Department of Indian Railways

by the Railway Board and duly approved by the Union

Public Service Commission (UPSC) under the same

scheme and notification in order to remove the stagnation of

ad-hoc officers which exists in the Group A of Civil

Engineering Department.

(2) That, after no response from the administration, many

applications and prolonged discussions through their

federation with the administration the Petitioners filed an

Original Application bearing No. 28 of 2008 before the

Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi

seeking direction to the Respondent/Ministry of Railways to

implement the additional vacancies of 238 granted to the

Civil Engineering Department and approved by UPSC in

pursuance of the order/judgment dated 23.09.2002 passed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 97 of

1997 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has uphold the

power of the government to relax the quota provided in Rule

4 of the Recruitment Rules dealing with the induction of

officers in to Group A through promotion and direct

appointment in case of exigencies.

(3) That the Railway administration has constantly refused to

implement the ratio of Hon’ble supreme Court’s judgment dated

23/09/02 which inter alia said that one department can not be

discriminated against the other, where in the 3 departments have

already been given the benefit of additional vacancies, whereas the

departments –Civil Engineering department – the present petitioners

and the Electrical departments, are being denied the same, thus

violating article 14 & 16 of the constitution for treating 2 sets of

department differently i.e. Traffic, S&T & Personnel departments are

given the benefit and the civil Engg & Electrical Department are being

the benefits, though additional vacancies were given to all the 5

departments under one scheme and one letter, duly approved by

UPSC.

(4) That the scheme additional vacancies is not being

implemented for Civil Engineering Department, under the plea that the

Jabalpur CAT – had ruled that “Govt. was not empowered to enhance the stipulated/laid down quota (40%) for promotee officers under rule 4 of recruitment rules for Group ‘A’, the appeal

of promotee officers Federation for which was dismissed in limini by

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This despite the fact that Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, later on in their detailed and full pledged

judgment delivered on 23/09/2002, in the case of U.O.I. & Ors Vs.

A.K.Singh & Ors (92/1999) in an appeal for another department for the

same scheme and similarly situated. It is important to point out that

the case of Civil Engineering Department (Jabalpur bench of CAT)

judgment also came into discussion. This judgment held that the

Hon’ble CAT have erred in their judgment, and that the government is

empowered to enhance the quota in explained circumstances. The

operative paras of the judgments are as under :

(5) That, the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi after detailed presentations and

discussions for about two years in its order dated

21.01.2010 passed in O.A. No. 28 of 2008 has expressed its

inability to adjudicate the matter on the ground that the Ld.

Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur vide its

order dated 05.08.1994 passed in O.A. No.8653 of 1994

has held that government has no power to relax the quota

provided in Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules dealing with the

induction of officers in to Group A through promotion and

direct appointment. The appeal bearing Civil Appeal

No.17364 of 1994 against the said order dated 05.08.1994

passed by Ld. Tribunal, Jabalpur, was preferred before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Federation of the Promotee

Officers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated

20.01.1995 passed in Civil Appeal No.17364 of 1994,

dismissed the appeal in limine. The Ld. Central

Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 21.01.2010

directed the Petitioners herein, to approach the Hon’ble

Supreme Court for appropriate relief or remedy, despite very

positive and exhaustive judgment on the subject, on

23/09/02, by quoting the operative para of the said judgment

in their order dated 28/01/2010 (copy enclosed as Annexure

)

(6) That, the Petitioners herein are the officers in Group A of the

Indian Railway Services of Engineers working in Civil

Engineering Department as who represent the cause of the

Promotee Officers of the Civil Engineering Department &

who are the victims of the wrong decision of the

Respondent/Ministry of Railways.

(7) That, the Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court

against the violation of their Fundamental Rights provided

under Article 16 of the Constitution of India which

guarantees the equality before law among the equals and

equality of opportunities for all citizens in matters relating to

the employment or appointment to any office under the

State.

(8) That in 1988 – 1989 a study was conducted by the Railway

Board regarding cadre position on Railways which indicate

large scale stagnation existing in the cadre of Group – B

Officers.

(9) That on 05.03.1991 the Railway Board in consultation with

the U.P.S.C. decided to allot additional number of vacancies

for induction to Group ‘A’ from the cadre of Group ‘B’

Officers for five Departments only (out of 8 departments) as

under:

i) Civil Engineers - 238

ii) Signal & Tele-Commn

Department - 76

iii) Electrical Engineers - 52

iv) Personnel Deptt. - 49

v) Traffic Deptt. - 48

463

These additional vacancies were duly

approved by the U.P.S.C.

(6) That in 1992 Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)

conducted induction of cadre of Group ‘B’ services in Group

‘A’ (for 1990-1991), for all those five departments. The 158

(out of 238 allotted as above) additional vacancies in Civil

Engineering Department were filed for two years only i.e.

1990 and 1991 in addition to regular vacancies for the year

1989, 1990 & 1991. The balance 80 vacancies for the year

1992 in Civil Engineering Department were to be filled

in next year.

(7) That, on 19.02.1993 letter No. E(GP) 92/1/49 dt. 19.02.1993

was issued by Railway Board approving the name of the

Group ‘B’ Officers (225) of Civil Engineering Department to

be promoted to Group ‘A’ (IRSE) w.e.f. 24.12.1992.

(8) That, in 1993 an O.A. No. 283 / 93 with M.P. No. 664/93

was filed. Smt. P. Viswanathan – a direct recruited officer of

Traffic Department (IRTS) before the Hon’ble CAT of

Madras Bench at Chennai challenging the Notification dated

22.07.1992 of Ministry of Railways notifying the

induction of 99 Gp. ‘B’ Officers of Traffic Department in Gp.

‘A’ containing 48 additional vacancies and the balance

normal quota vacancies as per the above mentioned

scheme, saying that the Government is not empowered

to induct more number of Gp. ‘B’ Officers in Gp. ‘A’ than

the stipulated quota (40%) laid down for them in

Recruitment Rules.

(9) That, in 1993 an O.A. bearing No. 574 of 1993 titled as Anil

Kumar Sanghi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. was filed

before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,

New Delhi for Signal & Telecommunication (S&T)

Department challenging the Notification dt. 15.09.1992

issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway

Board) appointing 127 Group ‘B’ Officers of the S&T

(Signal & Telecommunication Engineers) to the Jr. Scale of

the Indian Railway Service of S&T Engineers (IRSSE)

w.e.f. 23.07.1992, as being violative of Rule 4 of the

Recruitment Rules to IRSSE .

(10) That, another O.A. bearing No. 865 of 1993 titled as Ranjan

Yadav & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. was filed before the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur,

challenging the Notification dated 19.02.1993 issued by

Govt. of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board)

appointing 225 Group ‘B’ Officers of Civil Engineering

Department to the Jr. scale of the Indian Railway Service of

Engineers (IRSE) w.e.f. 24.12.1992 on the identical plea i.e.

this being violative of Rule 4 of the Recruitment to the IRSE,

according to which Gp. ‘B’’s quota of 40% cannot be

exceeded as the Government is not empowered to exceed

the stipulated quota.

(11) That, on 14.02.1994 the Hon’ble CAT, Madras Bench

dismissed the application filed by the direct recruits against

the Government Notification for Traffic Department, and

held that Government is empowered to enhance the quota,

in the exigencies of government working specially this has

been done in consultation with the U.P.S.C.

(12) That, on 05.08.1994 the Hon’ble CAT, Jabalpur Bench,

Jabalpur, allowed the O.A. bearing No. 865 of 1993 and

held that Government is not empowered to induct Group

‘B’ Officers in Group ‘A’ more than the quota laid down

in Rule 4.

(13) That, in 1994 a Civil Appeal bearing No. 17364 / 94

titled as Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ranjan Yadav & Ors. was

filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the Order

dated 05.08.1994 of Hon’ble CAT, Jabalpur Bench, in O.A.

No. 865 / 1993.

(14) That, on 20.01.1995 the Hon’ble Supreme Court vides its

Order dated 20.01.1995 dismissed the Civil Appeal bearing

No. 17364 of 1994.

(15) That, in March ‘1995 a letter bearing No. E(GP) /93/1/85

dated was issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Railway

(Railway Board) notifying the names of the Officers,

implementing the Judgment / Order dated 05.08.1994 of

Hon’ble CAT, Jabalpur, in O.A. No. 865 / 1993, thereby

reversing the grant of Group ‘A’ to 225 officers of Civil Engg.

Deptt. and thereby adjusting the additional (more than the

regular quota) number of officers against the subsequent

years’ vacancies.

(16) That, on 04.08.1995 the Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New

Delhi dismissed the O.A. No. 574 of 1993 in the case of S

&T Deptt. and held that, Government is not empowered to

induct persons more than the quota laid down 40%.

(17) That, in 1997 a Civil Appeal bearing No. 92 of 1997 titled as

Indian Railway Class II Officers Federation & Union of India

Versus Anil Kumar Sanghi & Ors., was filed challenging the

Order dt. 04.08.1995 of Central Administrative Tribunal

(CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 574 of 1993.

(18) That, on 23.09.2002 the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside

the Order dt. 04.08.1995 of the Ld. CAT, in O.A. No. 574 of

1993 and held that no illegality has been committed by the

Union of India in appointing 127 Group ‘B’ officers of S&T

Department of Railways to the Jr. Scale Group ‘A’ by the

Order dt. 15.09.1992. The Ld. CAT has committed an error

of law in interpreting the relevant Rule. The provision in Rule

4 of Recruitment to IRSSE (Group ‘A’) for variation of

percentage from time to time in case of a necessity, is for all

purposes equivalent to the power of relaxation. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court has further held that the S&T Department

cannot be treated differently than Traffic Department and

Personnel Department who have already been granted the

benefit of additional vacancies.

(19) That, in 2003 applications were made by various offices of

Civil Engineering Departments and also of Electrical

Department; after the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India on 23.09.2002 holding that the Government is

empowered to enhance the quota of Gp. ‘B’ Officers for

induction to Gp. ‘A’ in the exigencies of government services

and also that the government cannot treat department

different than other department and the essence of the

Judgments be implemented in the case of officers of Civil

Engineering department .

(20) That, on 28.04.2003 a letter bearing No. E(GP) 2002/1/27

dt. 28.04.2003 issued by the Railway Board while replying to

the Indian Railway Promote Officers’ Federation (IRPOF),

mentioned that promotions in respect of IRSE will be

regulated in terms of Orders of Hon’ble CAT, Jabalpur

Bench, Jabalpur and the promotions in respect of IRSEE will

be regulated in terms of Orders of Hon’ble CAT, Mumbai

Bench, Mumbai.

(21) That, on 30.08.2004 a letter bearing No. ROF/Meeting/04/41

was issued by IRPOF to the Chairman, Railway Board

requesting the Board for conducting DPC in respect of 79

vacancies in Civil Engineering Department from Group ‘B’ to

Group ‘A’ for the year 1992 to 1995 and the shortfall of 90

vacancies from 1989 to 2000 be also filled in view of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 23.09.2002,

since the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had already

quashed the Judgments in the case of S&T Deptt. holding

that the Government is not empowered to give more

vacancies than 40% quota.

(22) That, on 30.08.2004 the issue of implementing the

Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of

S&T Department, Civil Engineering Department and

Electrical Department too, which similarly diluted is taken up

by the Indian Railway Promotee Officers Federation, in the

formal meeting with the Railway Board on 27.04.2004 (Item

No. 5 para 14) and again on 10.01.2005 (Item No. 5 Para

43). Railway Board agrees to reconsider this issue.

(23) That, on 10.01.2005 during the meeting of the IRPOF with

the Railway Board, the Respondent made the assurance to

reconsider the issue of implementation of Judgment dt.

23.09.2002 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Civil

Engg. Department also, as per Rule 4 of I.R.S.E. against the

238 vacancies sanctioned by the U.P.S.C. but no response

came further.

(24) That, on various dates 15.03.2006, 16.03.2006, 17.03.06,

18.03.06, 10.08.2006, 17.02.2007, 26.07.2007, 27.07.2007

and 14.08.2007, the Petitioners submitted application to

the Secretary, Railway Board for the implementation of the

ratio of the Judgment dated 23.09.2002 passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S&T Department for Civil

Engg. Deptt. and for the promotion of 238 Group ‘B’ Officers

to Group ‘A’ against these vacancies as sanctioned by the

U.P.S.C. as per their assurance given in the meeting dt.

27.04.2004 and 10.01.2005 between IRPOF and the

Railway Board.

(25) That, on 28.05.2007 the Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.

4110 of 2007 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New

Delhi seeking relief regarding the relaxation as per Rule 4 of

the Recruitment Rules for the purpose of the promotion from

Gr. B to Gr. A. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to

issue notice vide its Order dated 28.05.2007.

(26) That, the aforesaid Writ Petition was dismissed as

withdrawn by the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated

05.10.2007 due to lack of jurisdiction and Hon’ble High

Court directed to file appropriate petition / application before

the appropriate forum.

(27) That, in 2007 the Petitioners filed an Original Application

bearing No. 28 of 2008 before the Central Administrative

Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi seeking direction to the

Respondent/Ministry of Railways to allot the additional

vacancies of 238 granted to the Civil Engineering

Department and approved by UPSC.

(28) That, on 21.01.2010 the Ld. Tribunal vides its order dated

21.02.2010 passed in Original Application No.28 of 2008

dismissed the application as withdrawn with the liberty to the

Petitioners to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court with

appropriate remedy provided in law.

GROUNDS:

That, the present Writ Petition is preferred on the following

Grounds:

i) Because, the additional vacancies were sanctioned for

removing the stagnation in five departments under the

one and the same scheme of Govt. of India. The

same has now been implemented in Personal

Department, Traffic and Commercial departments.

ii) Because, the Ld. Tribunal has observed that the

Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Bench, Jabalpur

vide its order dated 05.08.1994 passed in O.A. No.

8653 of 1993 has held that the government under

Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules has no power to relax

the quota of indunction in Group ‘A’ services. The Civil

Appeal No. 17364 of 1994 was filed by the federation

of the Petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

against the order dated 05.08.1994 passed by the Ld.

Tribunal and the abovementioned Civil Appeal was

disposed in limine by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide

its order dated 20.01.1995 without expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case . The Ld. Tribunal on

the basis of the order dated 20.01.1995 passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court constrained itself from

passing any orders in the O.A. No. 28 of 2008

preferred by the Petitioners and gave liberty to the

Petitioners to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court for

appropriate relief on the basis on the judgment dated

23.09.2002 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1997.

iii) Because, the Petitioners fundamental right under

Article 16 of the Constitution of India has been

violated by the Respondents and they have been

discriminated with the officers of other Engineering

Departments of Railways namely Signal &

Telecommunication, Electrical and Personnel

Departments who along with Civil Engineer

Department were also allotted the additional

vacancies under the same scheme and objective i.e.,

to remove the stagnation and in these departments

the additional vacancies in favour of the promotee

officers has already been implemented.

iv) Because, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Jai Singhani

Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1967 SC 1427 has

held that the principle of equality of opportunity is

guaranteed to all Citizens in respect of matters

relating to employment, which includes the

appointment. It does not prohibit the State to make

reasonable classification. In respect of promotion, the

principle of equality is attracted when the promotions

are made from amongst the same class of employees

and there has been discrimination. Accordingly ‘Article

16 (2) prohibits discrimination and thus assures the

effective enforcement of the Fundamental Right of

equality of opportunity guaranteed by Article 16 (1).

The words, ‘in respect of any employment’ used in

Article 16 (2) must, therefore, include all matters

relating to employment as specified in Article 16 (1).

Therefore, we are satisfied that promotion to Selection

posts is included both under Article 16 (1) and (2).”

v) Because, the concept of equality as provided under

Article 16 of the Constitution of India applies to the

appointment and promotion and where there is

discrimination among the equals with out any

intelligible differentia then it is violative of Article 16 of

the Constitution. This Hon’ble Court in “State of

Mysore Vs. P.Narsingha Rao reported in AIR 1968

SC 349 has held that Article 16 is only an incident of

application of concept of equality enshrined in Article

14 thereof. It gives effect to the doctrine of equality in

the matter of appointment and promotion.”

vi) Because, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “R.P. Sigh

Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1978 SC 327” has

further held that “It is well settled proposition and

principle of law that the doctrine of equality aimed to

achieve the object of providing justice and eliminating

the discrimination amongst the equals in respect of

matters relating to employment. It has been discussed

that the principle of equality is attracted when the

equals i.e. persons of the same group or classification

are treated as unequal, but every such case is to be

adjudged in accordance with the facts and

circumstances.”

vii) Because, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order

dated 23.09.2002 has held that the Government has

the power under Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules to

relax the quota where the exigencies requires doing

so. In the present case also the additional vacancies

were allotted to five departments including the Civil

Engineering Department to which the Petitioner herein

belong, to remove the acute stagnation in the Group A

services.

viii) Because, the Ld.Tribunal vide its order dated

21.01.2010 passed in O.A. No. 28 of 2008 has

observed that the Petitioners has placed reliance on

the order dated 23.09.2002 passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1997 wherein

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “The

provision for variation of percentage from time to time

in case of necessity is for all practical purposes

equivalent to the power of relaxation. There is no

particular reason why the Class II promotee office of

S&T department should be treated differently from the

same category in Traffic department. The application

of such different standards could very well be avoided

by giving a wider meaning to the expression varied

from time to time. Whether it be variation or

relaxation, it is meant to provide a leeway for

adjustment in exigencies of service which is very

much necessary in administrative interest and to cope

up with unforeseen contingencies.”

ix) Because, before the order/judgment dated 23.09.2002

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court there were

contrary decisions of the different Administrative

Tribunals regarding the power of the Government to

relax the quota as provided in Rule 4 of the

Recruitment Rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide

its order/judgment dated 23.09.2002 has settled the

law that the Government in case of exigencies can

relax the quota and therefore, upheld the decision of

the Government to allot additional vacancies to the

five departments for the indunction of the Group B

officers in o Group A.

x) Because, the respondent/Ministry has erred in law in

withdrawing the additional vacancies allotted to the

Civil Engineering Department by the Railway Board

and approved by the Union Public Service

Commission on the ground that the Ld. Administrative

Tribunal, Jabalpur vide its order dated 05.08.1994 has

held that the Government has no power to relax the

quota as prescribed in Rule 4 of the Recruitment

Rules. The Respondent has failed to appreciate that

the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order/judgment

dated 23.09.2002 has upheld the power of the

government to relax the quota in the case of the

exigencies and in this manner the order dated

05.08.1994 passed by the Ld.Tribunal is overruled

and would have no application.

xi) Because, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its

order/judgment dated 23.09.2002 while upholding the

power of the government to relax the quota in case of

the exigencies and approving the order of the

government of allotting the additional vacancies has

held that the departments who have been allotted the

additional vacancies shall not be discriminated and

the additional vacancies allotted to these departments

shall be implemented.

xii) Because, the Constitution of India guarantees equality

before law to the citizens of this country. The

provisions of the Constitution of India enforces

equality among the equals and any law, rules,

regulation or decision or order which discriminates

between the equals is violative of the Constitution of

India and is null and void.

xiii) Because, the Civil Engineering Department (to which

the Petitioners belong) along with the four other

department of the Railways were allotted the

additional vacancies under the same scheme and the

common objective i.e. to remove the stagnation in the

promotion of the Group B officers to Group A of the

department. The Respondent has already allotted and

implemented the additional vacancies to the three

departments namely Personnel, Training and Signal

and Telecommunication and has left the Civil

Engineering Department on the untenable and illegal

ground the Ld.Tribunal, Jabalpur vide its order dated

05.08.1994 has held that the government has no

power to relax the quota and thus allotment of

additional vacancies was contrary to the recruitment

rules. The Railway has failed to appreciate that the

order dated 05.08.1994 passed by the Ld.Tribunal has

been overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its

order/judgment dated 23.09.2002 whereby this

Hon’ble Court has uphold the power of the

government to relax the quota in case of the

exigencies.

xiv) Because, in the sheer violation of the order dt.

23.09.2002 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

wherein the Supreme Court held that all the similar

departments in which the additional vacancies were

approved by the UPSC shall be treated equally, but

the scheme requiring reduction of stagnation in 5

departments is implemented for 3 departments only

and the scheme benefits are denied to two

departments (Elect. & Civil Engg.).

xv) Because, the Article 16 of the Constitution of India

provides for equal opportunity of employment and

appointment in services to the citizens of this country.

The decision of the Respondent to withdrew the

additional vacancies which were granted by the

Railway Board and approved by the Union Public

Service Commission from the Civil Engineering

Department only and not from the other departments

amounts to denying the equal opportunity of

employment to the Petitioners and thus is violative of

Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

xvi) Because, the different treatment of the officers of the

Civil Engineering Department in allotment and

implementation of additional vacancies with the

similarly situated and similarly placed officers of Signal

and Telecommunication Department and other

department is inequality among the same group. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in “The General Manager,

Southern Central Railway, Secundrabad Vs. A.V.R.

Sidhanti, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1955 while

dissented the meaning and scope of Fundamental

Right of equality has held that different treatment

through mini classification creating inequalities

amongst the same groups and class of people under

an employment is discriminatory.”

xvii) Because, the Respondent vide letter dated

27.07.2007 restored back the additional vacancies to

the Signal and Telecommunications Department in

consonance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that the

Govt. has the power to enchance/relax the quota of

induction from Group b to Group A as per Rule 4 but

failed to implement that part of the judgment of

Hon’ble Court wherein it was held that all the similar

situated departments cannot be treated differently and

therefore, the power of the enhancement/relaxation of

quota for induction from Group B to Group A has been

implemented in case of three departments leaving

behind the Civil Engineering and Electrical

Departments. This order of the respondent is

discriminatory in nature and is vioaltive of Article 14

and 16 of the Constitution of India.

xviii) Because, once the principle has been decided by the

Supreme Court regarding Govt. having power to relax

the applicants belonging to the Civil and Electrical

Department should not be denied the benefits of

relaxation/enhanced quota based on the pretext that

Govt. is not empowered to enhance quota, which is

not legally acceptable. Hence, affecting Civil &

Electrical Departments adversely, despite clear cut

judgment of the Supreme Court, is not legally

reasonable and is violative of Article 16 of the

Constitution of India..

xix) Because, the policy decision of the Government of

India for enhancing/relaxing the quota laid down for

nomination in Junior Scale Gp. ‘A’ (60:40) for Gp.’B’

was meant to give benefit to the stagnating promotee

officers, who had been suffering stagnation since

1985 despite clear cut assurance to look into the

matter, on the request may by their Federation and

expressly to address the problem, the Government

had sanctioned additional 238 posts for Civil

Engineering Deptt.

xx) Because, the number of Gr. ‘B’ officers working with 8

years services or more in Gr. ‘B’ was 454 as on

1/9/1989 in Civil Engg. Deptt. and 130 in Elect. Branch

(1110 in all Deptts.) indicating the acute stagnation in

the deptts. this necessitating the additional posts for

induction in these departments.

xxi) Because, non implementation of the ratio of the

judgment has created an analogous situation where

under the cadre position of same recruitment rules,

Govt. is empowered for enhancement of quota for 3

departments (Traffic, S&T and Personnel

Departments) and not empowered for Civil Engg. And

Electrical departments which is totally biased and

unconstitutional and illegal.

xxii) Because, even today the extent of stagnation is

very large in these deptts. which is as under (as

on 01/11/2007).

Deptts No. of Gr.’ B’

Officers with 8

years regular

service or more

No. of Gr. ‘B’ officers

working in SS (Adhoc)

Gr. ‘A’ post.

Civil Engg. 636 451

Elect. 185 128

Accounts 350 261

S & T 268 249

Other Deptt. 839 719

Total 2278 1808

xiv) Because, as per the figures maintained by the Railway

Admn., the number of junior scale posts-in all deptts.

As on 01.11.2007 is 1647 at present out or which only

382 officers are actually working in Junior scale (379

direct recruits and 3 promotees) leaving clear

vacancies in junior scale itself to the tune of 1265. If

the quota of 50% which is presently laid down, the

share of Gr. ‘B’ in Gr. ‘A’ should have been 824,

whereas only 3 Gr. ‘B; officers are actually working in

Gr. ‘A’. For Civil Engg. and Elect. Deptts. these figures

as on 01.11.2007are as under: -

Deptts No. of

sanctioned

posts in

Jr. Scale

No. of

Officers

actually

working

No. of

vacancies

Share of

Gr. ‘B’

in

Jr.Scale

(50%)

No. of Gr.

‘B’ Officers

promoted

to Gp. ‘A’

actually

working

Civil

Engg.

295 114 181 148 Nil

Elect.

Deptt.

220 53 167 110 Nil

All

deptts.

1647 382 1265 824 3

.

xv) Because, as per the total posts the situation is very bad

as under: -

Deptts Total

sanctioned

post in Gr.

‘A’

Total

Officers

actually

working

Vacancies Share

of Gr.

‘B’ in

Gp. ‘A’

(50%)

Gr.‘B’

officers

promoted to

Gp. ‘A’

actually

working.

Civil

Engg.

2024 1422 602 1012 189

Elect.

Deptt.

1022 844 178 511 93

All 8902 6134 2768 4451 1033

deptts.

.

xvi) Because, between 30.08.2004 and 07.06.2005, the issue

of implementing the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India, in the case of S&T Department, for Civil

Engineering Department and Electrical Department too,

which are similarly situated was taken up by the Indian

Railway Promotee Officers Federation, in the formal

meeting with the Railway Board on 27.04.2004 (Item No.

5 para 14) and again on 10.01.2005 (Item No. 5 Para

43). Railway Board agreed to reconsider this issue.

xvii) Because, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its

order/judgment dated 23.09.2002 had uphold the power

of the government to relax the quota as provided in Rule

4 of the Recruitment Rules and allot the additional

vacancies in the case of exigencies therefore, the

decision/order of the Respondents withdrawing the

additional vacancies allotted to the Civil Engineering

Department on the ground that the government has no

power to relax the quota and allot additional vacancies is

contrary to the judgment of this Hon’ble Court and hence

is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

PRAYER

In light of the above-mentioned premises, the petitioners

most humbly and respectfully pray that the Honourable

Supreme Court may be pleased to:-

a. issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature

of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction

directing that the Respondent to implement the 228

additional vacancies which were allotted to the Civil

Engineering Department by the Railway Board and

approved by the Union Public Service Commission in

view of the order/judgment dated 23.09.2002 passed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 92

of 1997 ;

b. issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature

of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction

directing the Respondent to induct applicants and

others belonging to Civil Engineering Department in

the light of the Judgment dt. 23.09.2002 passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 92

of 1997;

c. issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature

of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction

directing the Respondent to extend all such benefit,

rights, facilities and relief which are due to the Officers

of Civil Engg. Deptt. with all consequential benefits;

d. pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit and proper.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS AS IN

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVERY PRAY

DRAWN & FILED BY

DRAWN ON:

(C.D. SINGH)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS

FILED ON: